Will the chancellor cane house owners in the budget?

Page 15 of 16  
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:32:00 +0000, Andrew

Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and all that, but the price is now 5% higher, okay? And because there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Mitchell" wrote | >>But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% <g> | >Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at | >a stroke' by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the | >vendor. | Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards | 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the | prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to | somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and | all that, but the price is now 5% higher, okay? And because | there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong | (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies | more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!
What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above tax-free gain taxed at 80%.
So if bank base rate is 10% a property bought for 50k would have tax-free gain to 80k in 5 years. If it was put on the market at 100k the vendor would get 84k after the 80% marginal tax on 100k minus 80k.
The market would not stand that house being sold for 180k with 80k going in tax for the vendor to receive 100k current value. There would be little incentive for vendors to inflate prices because a large part of the gain would go in tax. Moreover, the concept of borrowing huge amounts of money to buy a house anticipating high gains in value would fail, so people would incur less debt burden, less capital would be tied up in the inflexible and unproductive property market and people could return to the concept of *saving before* buying a house rather than payng back afterwards. Other forms of investment would look more attractive against property, releasing capital for business investment, and the gap in property values between different parts of the country would be brought closer to previous values. There would also be some compensation to periods of high interest rates because they would result in a higher tax allowance in the longer term.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, why should those damn property owners make any money? Take it off them! Confiscate it!
Why not just confiscate all the property in the country and have the Government own it? And while you're about it, you could confiscate all the businesses, too.
Then we could all live in a festering shithole like Soviet era Eastern Europe.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

You seem to be festering in an illusion that house prices can keep on rising at rate that is many times the RPI and that somehow this is a good thing and can go on for ever. Ask an engineer or biochemist what happens when an amplifier or a biological process loses its negative feedback - disaster, and so it is, will be, and has been with the housing market. The next 'correction' will be as nasty as any in the past. In the absence of common sense amongst the house-buying great unwashed, the only negative feedback is one of 1) higher interest rates (which we have had in the past under Lab and COn) 2) Higher unemployment (had that too under lab and con) 3) Restrictions on what you could borrow (Wilson /Callaghan loved that one - MAggie scrapped it). 4) Sudden cut in population (plague, flue, sars, meteorite)
If businesses are taxed on assets as well as profits, we should the silly smug house-owner be exempted. If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we. Don't forget the re-rating due in 2006 - those of you dreaming of how much your house is 'worth'.
--
Andrew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.
Nope.
I *am* a biochemist. Or at least, I was.

Quite so. See me fail to give a damn.

The market will sort it out.
[8 lines snipped]

Homeowners are not businesses.

Numbers of reasons; tradition, lots of people are using property to replace the pensions they've lost.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

I wonder if there will as much rioting in the streets as there was last time?
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week of 6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made 50,000 EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate of return. It is greed, pure and simple. A few very highly paid managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt. If the chancellor levies another windfall tax on such avaricious behaviour, I for one will cheer loudly. Maybe once day the shysters will realise that if they play fair with the public, there won't be a need to levy windfall taxes.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kylix snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk says...

So should hard work not bring it's own rewards?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:01:54 -0000, Sausage King

And do you really believe that everyone in an organisation that makes thousands of pounds a minute is being handsomely rewarded? If not, why not? They all contribute, don't they? At least Bill Gates made millionaires out of tea ladies, even though his software is full of holes.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell

Why?
No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise shareholder return.

You don't have to invest your money with them.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Which is wrong. It should be to conduct its business in a professional manner, do the utmost to fulfil customer satisfaction (quality of product and service) and keep employee welfare at the highest levels.
Fulfil the above and returns will be high. The problem is that many companies put the cart before the horse.

80% of debt is mortgages. Back to land not being re-distributed and a planning system geared to keep stinking rich, stinking rich, as we all pay extortionate prices for box homes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

That is important as well but it is not the first objective - it can't be. You need to have fulfilled all or most of the points that you mention, but they are not an end in and of themselves.

This is a circular argument of course

Yes, dear.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

No it is not. It just means I was right and you were wrong.

pay
By gad ! he is learning.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nah. You were wrong and I was right :-)

I already did.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The self-employed? How come thousands of small businesses can provide a useful service, both to their customers and themselves, with no shareholders involved?
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

They are the shareholder. They will try to maximise their own return.
Mal
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good for them! They are doing the work. They earn the rewards. Shareholders do neither.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Mitchell wrote in message

Shareholder risk their money every time that they buy shares. Some you lose, some you win, as I know too well. They provide the initial cash that pays the workers etc. If you want a well capitalised company to grow, then you need shareholders prepared to take the risk of losing their money. Perhaps like IMM, you think that Cuba is the the model economy?
Regards Capitol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:04 +0000, Mike Mitchell

The proprietor or perhaps a small group of individuals are the shareholder. The same principles apply

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sure they do!
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[31 lines snipped]

It [profit] is the first objective of any business.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.